<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/03/2013 08:27 AM, Joe Campbell
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">I'm "trying to wish away what the Constitution says"?
      Isn't this just another way of saying that you think the
      Constitution says something different? Why would I wish the
      Constitution said something different than it says? I'm very happy
      with what it DOES say. And I've given a pretty good argument for
      my interpretation of it. I haven't heard any argument from your
      side, for your radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    How is my interpretation of the Second Amendment in any way
    "radical"?  "Radical?"  Really?  "...the right of the people to keep
    and bear arms shall not be infringed."  How is a government ban on a
    complete class of guns (based almost solely on how military they
    look) not an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms? 
    Doesn't it stop me from buying an AR15, for example, not based on
    market forces or recalls based on safety or popularity, but because
    the government told me I can't own one?  Doesn't that infringe on my
    right to keep and bear arms, if only by restricting what I can keep
    and bear?  I don't see how this is "radical".<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      And for Christ's sake PLEASE stop attributing to me the view that
      I want to ban guns. I have not said I wanted to ban anything, not
      even semiautomatics. In fact, I've ONLY been talking about the
      Constitutional interpretation issue and the ONLY point I've
      consistently made on this topic is that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT
      allow you the right to buy whatever gun you wish; rights can't
      possibly have this kind of universal extension since no one has
      the right to do wrong. <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    When I mentioned the superficial differences between an AR15 and a
    mini 14 that makes the latter not fall under the "assault weapon"
    nomenclature, your suggestion was to ban mini 14's too.  So, I don't
    know how I ever got it into my head that you were for the banning of
    assault weapons.  Oh, and you haven't responded to my apparently
    invisible response to your "no one has the right to do wrong" idea. 
    That was namely that if you have the right in the first place, then
    it's up to the law to determine the bounds of it.  You don't have
    the right to libel me, but the fact that you libeled me can only be
    determined after it has happened.  Preemptively removing my right to
    post to an Internet forum because someone somewhere libeled someone
    is not anymore justified than banning a type of gun because someone
    somewhere committed a massacre with one.<br>
    <br>
    How do you propose to stop people from doing wrong?  Do you have an
    agenda to ban every activity that could possibly lead to such an
    outcome?<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      ALL that means is that we CAN and should TALK about banning
      semi-automatics, or pretty much ANY gun, as I see it. But we are
      going to have to muster up some pretty good reasons in support of
      such a ban. Gun rights suggest that unless a VERY good reason can
      be given, we should not ban guns, or types of guns. But it allows
      for the banning of types of guns provided adequate reasons are
      given. I've never said anything about banning this gun or that,
      though admittedly I don't much care whether or not semiautomatics
      are banned. I don't see any use for those guns by private
      citizens. That doesn't mean I want to ban them.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    This is where I get the "wishing away the Constitution" bit from. 
    You don't give a damn about semiautomatics, so let's talk about
    banning them.  I don't give a damn about philosophers as a group, so
    why not take away their right to a speedy trial?  You have to look
    to the Constitution first, to see what the government is even
    allowed to do.  Then you can take the conversation from there.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      I don't have a dislike of guns -- in fact, I actually LIKE guns
      very much (though this is recent) -- and the fact that you keep
      trying to fit every liberal into the same hole makes it very
      difficult to talk with you about this issue.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    That's great.  I don't have a great like of guns, to me they are a
    tool.  They can be fun to target practice with, but I'm not
    fanatical about them.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      Getting back to my point and your misunderstanding of it, saying
      that ALL rights CAN be curtailed is not the same as saying that
      "you can curtail it however you want." Speech can be curtailed.
      You cannot curtail speech however you want. In this way, it is
      different from (say) smoking crack. We can curtail ALL instances
      of smoking crack but not all instances of speech. There is no
      right to smoke crack. That is what having a right does: it gives
      you a kind of presumptive entitlement; it doesn't give you
      universal entitlement. That is absurd. If we have no universal
      entitlement to speech, then we have no universal entitlement to
      anything. And I've already made the point about speech.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    It's too bad there's no document out there that we could refer to
    that would tell us exactly and in what ways our rights can be
    curtailed by the government.  We could then refer to that document
    when the subject of a specific right comes up.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      You might wonder: How does your owning a gun interfere with my
      rights? Well, it COULD do so in many ways. Consider that a great
      many guns are stolen each year; a great many of those are used in
      crimes. You could be as careful as you wish but no matter how
      careful you are, some gun that you buy COULD be used to kill ME.
      So in theory at least we already have a situation where one set of
      rights (your right to own a gun) is being weighed against another
      set of rights (my right to life). The situation is absurd since
      the likelihood some gun that you own being used to kill me is
      small. But all that means is as the likelihood of threat to life
      (or harm to interests) rises, the more a consideration of these
      kinds of issues matter when determining whether or not your right
      can be curtailed.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    That's why we have laws that govern the misuse of firearms.  You
    don't get to inhibit my right to do something solely because I could
    do something bad with that right if I chose.  When you have a Right,
    you have a Duty to exercise it responsibly.  Consequences for not
    doing so fill our law books.  Banning something because it might be
    used in a bad way is more akin to thought-crime.  No one has done
    anything bad yet, so why are they being punished for it?<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      But this is NOT an argument for banning guns! This is an argument
      that even though we have gun rights, we can ban guns just the
      same. In other words, the NRA interpretation -- your
      interpretation -- is a bad one, an absurd interpretation of the
      2nd Amendment. <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I'm not a member of the NRA, mainly because they flip out on this
    stuff and do lots of harm, in my opinion.  Still, I'd like you to
    explain how a ban on a class of guns is not an infringement on my
    right to keep and bear arms.  The logic that since you can control
    guns in some manner already that you should then be able to ban them
    as well doesn't hold up.  There are restrictions on speech already,
    so should we be able ban classes of speech simply because we've
    already allowed ourselves other ways in which we can restrict
    speech?  The existence of obscenity laws justifying the banning of
    negative speech about the government?  As I've said before, we have
    a document already that lays all this out for us.  The onus is on
    those wanting to restrict a right further to provide some kind of
    Constitutional basis for it.<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <br>
      But I take all rights seriously. We'd have to have a damn good
      reason to ever ban any gun.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Well, I'm glad you're not for just banning them on a whim.  <br>
    <br>
    Paul<br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite"><br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Paul
        Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
        wrote:<br>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
          .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
            <div><br>
              Oh, I'm listening.  I just think you're trying to wish
              away what the Constitution says.  What good is a Right if
              you can curtail it however you want?  MY Right to bear
              arms should not be infringed because some other a-hole
              with an AR15 and a couple of screws loose caused a
              tragedy.  If he had survived, and was convicted in a court
              of law, then his freedom would have been taken away, if
              not his life.  I still have that right to arm myself that
              was very clearly laid out in the text of the Bill of
              Rights.<br>
              <br>
              I'm not saying that my right to bear arms should override
              your right to walk around in public without getting shot
              by me.  I am saying that your dislike of guns and/or wish
              that no one had them does not override my right to bear
              arms.  This seems very clear to me.  We're talking about
              where rights collide.  But for rights to collide, you have
              to have them in the first place.  The First Amendment
              analogy would be to take away your right to post freely on
              the Internet because some a-hole on a forum somewhere
              libeled me.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                  <br>
                  Paul</font></span>
              <div>
                <div class="h5"><br>
                  <br>
                  On 02/02/2013 04:28 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
            <div>
              <div class="h5">
                <blockquote type="cite">I've told you this before but
                  you don't seem to be listening: any right can be
                  violated for the right reason; there is NO right to do
                  X regardless; all rights have limitations given their
                  nature. You can't allow people the right to violate
                  the rights of others, for instance. Thus, when rights
                  bump up against each other, one of them has to give. <br>
                  <br>
                  And it says "the right of the people ... shall not be
                  violated" not "folks can own whatever kind of gun they
                  wish, and for whatever reason or purpose." Curtailing
                  my speech by prohibiting me from slanderous public
                  comments is not a violation of my rights since I never
                  had the right to harm your interests in the first
                  place. I can speak freely ... up to a point.
                  Essentially a right is something you can do so long as
                  it doesn't bump up against the rights and interests of
                  others. Because NO ONE has a right to do wrong. <br>
                  <br>
                  This point seems very clear. I've made it over and
                  over. If you could spot the flaw in the argument, I'd
                  be interested to know what it is. But you won't even
                  talk about. You just keep making the same false claim
                  about gun rights, over and over again.<br>
                  <br>
                  <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:40
                    PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
                        target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
                    wrote:<br>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                      <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
                        <div><br>
                          My idea doesn't match the current narrative
                          going around, eh?<br>
                          <br>
                          The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment
                          is one, doesn't give us any rights.  They are
                          already ours.  All it does is limit what the
                          government can do with regards to those
                          rights.  For example, for the 1st Amendment,
                          it's "Congress shall make no law...".  For the
                          4th Amendment it's "The right of the people
                          ... shall not be violated".  In the case of
                          the 2nd Amendment, that limit is "the right of
                          the people ... shall not infringed".  The well
                          regulated militia part is explanatory, a
                          reason why the "shall not infringe" part was
                          put there.<br>
                          <br>
                          I'm having a hard time reconciling the word
                          "ban" with the words "the right of the people
                          ... shall not be infringed".  They appear to
                          be diametrically opposed to each other, to
                          me.  But then I guess I don't drink the
                          Kool-aid.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
                              <br>
                              Paul</font></span>
                          <div>
                            <div><br>
                              <br>
                              On 02/02/2013 01:54 PM, Joe Campbell
                              wrote:<br>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <blockquote type="cite">
                              <div>You have a faulty understanding of
                                the notion of a constitutional right.</div>
                              <div><br>
                                On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Paul
                                Rumelhart <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                  href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
                                  target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>


                                wrote:<br>
                                <br>
                              </div>
                              <blockquote type="cite">
                                <div>
                                  <div>On 02/02/2013 01:09 PM, Joe
                                    Campbell wrote:<br>
                                  </div>
                                  <blockquote type="cite">
                                    <div>1/ ban those guns too maybe</div>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  <br>
                                  If only there was some Constitutional
                                  backing for that.  If that still
                                  matters, anymore.<br>
                                  <br>
                                  <blockquote type="cite">
                                    <div><br>
                                    </div>
                                    <div>2/ and the drones. <br>
                                    </div>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  <br>
                                  I wouldn't "ban" them, necessarily. 
                                  Better to use drones that put boots on
                                  the ground.  I'd simply suggest that
                                  we stop using them as our President's
                                  personal kill toy.<br>
                                  <br>
                                  Someday I'd like to hear this story
                                  from the perspective of one of the
                                  remote controllers of the drones.  How
                                  exactly does an average drone
                                  assassination go down?<br>
                                  <br>
                                  Paul<br>
                                  <br>
                                  <blockquote type="cite">
                                    <div><br>
                                      On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Paul
                                      Rumelhart <<a
                                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                                        href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
                                        target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>

                                      wrote:<br>
                                      <br>
                                    </div>
                                    <blockquote type="cite">
                                      <div>
                                        <div><br>
                                          You know, I could get behind
                                          these attempts to portray
                                          people who are against the
                                          assault weapons ban as
                                          sociopaths or schizophrenics,
                                          if it weren't for the
                                          following things:<br>
                                          <br>
                                          1.  If the proponents of these
                                          bans weren't so disingenuous
                                          with their wording.  "Assault
                                          weapon" is a look-and-feel
                                          definition, not a usage-based
                                          one.  A Ruger Mini 14 is just
                                          as deadly in a spree shooting
                                          as an AR15, but it's not
                                          considered an "assault weapon"
                                          because it doesn't look enough
                                          like a movie prop.  I've both
                                          made this kind of comment on
                                          this list before and have seen
                                          it made here many times.  I
                                          haven't seen anyone answer
                                          it.  What is the use of
                                          banning a weapon based on how
                                          military it looks?  Why ban
                                          guns with barrel shrouds?  All
                                          they do is keep you from
                                          burning yourself on the
                                          barrel.  Or bayonet mounts? 
                                          Are we really worried about
                                          the latest rash of gun
                                          stabbings?  My conclusion:
                                          it's only useful politically.<br>
                                          <br>
                                          2.  If they weren't so intent
                                          to ride the "think of the
                                          children" wave.  If the deaths
                                          of school children should be
                                          driving our behaviors, then
                                          how about we overhaul the
                                          drone program?  Lots of
                                          children are dying every day
                                          via drones, all OK'd by our
                                          sitting President.  I posted
                                          an article about that a few
                                          days ago, I think.  So why is
                                          the outrage over Newtown
                                          driving the assault weapons
                                          ban but there is no outrage
                                          over drone-killings?  The only
                                          differences I can see are that
                                          the Newtown angle has been in
                                          the news non-stop while there
                                          is very little reporting on
                                          personally sanctioned
                                          assassinations by our
                                          President and that the
                                          children killed by drones are
                                          brown and not white. 
                                          "Foreign" and not "domestic",
                                          if that makes you sleep
                                          better.  Also, every new
                                          gun-related incident gets
                                          center stage attention, as if
                                          these kinds of tragedies
                                          haven't been happening all the
                                          time.  Suddenly, a switch is
                                          thrown and we're all outraged
                                          about them.<br>
                                          <br>
                                          Now, I can get behind better
                                          background checks.  I'd like
                                          to see more focus on how we
                                          can keep guns out of the hands
                                          of the mentally ill as well,
                                          as long as we're careful about
                                          people's rights so a random
                                          Joe can't be suddenly labeled
                                          "mentally ill" because he or
                                          she owns an AR15 or for some
                                          other trumped up reason. 
                                          Better databases covering gun
                                          sales would also make sense,
                                          though I can understand the
                                          concerns that if they know
                                          about your guns they can also
                                          come take them away.  More
                                          training on gun handling and
                                          safety would also not go
                                          amiss.<br>
                                          <br>
                                          But this push to ban "assault
                                          weapons" is blatant political
                                          theater.  The magazine size
                                          restrictions are idiotic, as
                                          well.  It takes a second to
                                          swap a magazine if you've
                                          practiced it a few times. 
                                          Pick up the magazine, release
                                          the current one and let it
                                          drop, shove the new one home.
                                          <br>
                                          <br>
                                          tl;dr version: gun control is
                                          currently all about political
                                          expediency when it should be
                                          all about actual
                                          effectiveness.<br>
                                          <br>
                                          Paul<br>
                                          <br>
                                          On 02/02/2013 09:26 AM, Moscow
                                          Cares wrote:<br>
                                        </div>
                                        <blockquote type="cite">
                                          <div><mime-attachment.jpg><br>
                                            <br>
                                            <div>Seeya round town,
                                              Moscow, because . . .</div>
                                            <div><br>
                                            </div>
                                            <div>"Moscow Cares"</div>
                                            <div><a
                                                moz-do-not-send="true"
                                                href="http://www.MoscowCares.com"
                                                target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a></div>
                                            <div>  </div>
                                            <div>
                                              <div>Tom Hansen</div>
                                              <div>Moscow, Idaho</div>
                                              <div><br>
                                              </div>
                                              <div>"<span
                                                  style="font-size:medium">There's

                                                  room at the top they
                                                  are telling you still</span><span
style="font-size:medium"> </span></div>
                                              <span
                                                style="font-size:medium">But

                                                first you must learn how
                                                to smile as you kill </span><br
                                                style="font-size:medium">
                                              <span
                                                style="font-size:medium">If
                                                you want to be like the
                                                folks on the hill."</span></div>
                                            <div><font size="3"><span><br>
                                                </span></font></div>
                                            <div><font size="3"><span>-
                                                  John Lennon<br>
                                                </span></font>
                                              <div> </div>
                                            </div>
                                          </div>
                                          <div><br>
                                            On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:05 AM,
                                            Art Deco <<a
                                              moz-do-not-send="true"
                                              href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com"
                                              target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>>




                                            wrote:<br>
                                            <br>
                                          </div>
                                          <blockquote type="cite">
                                            <div>
                                              <div dir="ltr">Understanding
                                                why we need assault
                                                rifles:<br>
                                                <br>
                                                <Tom Tomorrow Glib
                                                Guns
                                                TMW2013-01-30colorKOS.png><br
                                                  clear="all">
                                                <div><br>
                                                  -- <br>
                                                  Art Deco (Wayne A.
                                                  Fox)<br>
                                                  <a
                                                    moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
                                                  <br>
                                                  <img
                                                    moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
                                                </div>
                                              </div>
                                            </div>
                                          </blockquote>
                                          <blockquote type="cite">
                                            <div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
                                              <span> List services made
                                                available by First Step
                                                Internet,</span><br>
                                              <span> serving the
                                                communities of the
                                                Palouse since 1994.</span><br>
                                              <span>               <a
                                                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
                                              <span>          <a
                                                  moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
                                              <span>=======================================================</span></div>
                                          </blockquote>
                                          <br>
                                          <fieldset></fieldset>
                                          <br>
                                          <pre>=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
          <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
                                        </blockquote>
                                        <br>
                                      </div>
                                    </blockquote>
                                    <blockquote type="cite">
                                      <div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
                                        <span> List services made
                                          available by First Step
                                          Internet,</span><br>
                                        <span> serving the communities
                                          of the Palouse since 1994.</span><br>
                                        <span>               <a
                                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                                            href="http://www.fsr.net"
                                            target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
                                        <span>          <a
                                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                                            href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
                                            target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
                                        <span>=======================================================</span></div>
                                    </blockquote>
                                  </blockquote>
                                  <br>
                                </div>
                              </blockquote>
                            </blockquote>
                            <br>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <br>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>